Talk:Rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy

Another source

New paper out last week: Gender dysphoria in adolescence: examining the rapid-onset hypothesis. Some highlights:

Once again the sex ratio shift, contra Turban.

In recent years, specialized clinics have witnessed an unprecedented surge in adolescent patients seeking treatment for gender dysphoria [1,2,3,4]. Contrary to earlier trends where young natal boys displayed gender dysphoria from an early age, a marked shift has occurred, with significantly more natal female adolescents seeking treatment [3, 5,6,7,8]. Adolescents receiving clinical care for gender dysphoria are characterized by a considerable prevalence of co-occurring psychiatric disorders [9,10,11,12].

That criticising inflation of the significance of Littman's study is valid:

Despite the limitations and speculative nature of Littman’s findings, her theory of ROGD gained significant traction and sparked discussions that at times overlooked the scant evidence supporting it [22,23,24]. Even before the publication of Littman’s article, and thus before the results of the study were available, the phenomenon was discussed [25] and treated as established knowledge by prominent figures in the field such as Ray Blanchard and J. Michael Bailey [26]. This discrepancy between the significance of empirical findings from a single study and the far-reaching conclusions drawn from them is a valid point of criticism.

That Littman's use of parental surveys was valid:

While the limitations of the study are clear, the use of parental surveys about their children is a longstanding and valid method within various fields of research for gathering preliminary data, informing hypotheses, and tracking behavioral trends. Therefore, the use of such surveys for hypothesis-generating studies should not be discouraged in clinical research, provided that one acknowledges their inherent limitations and potential for bias, especially in areas that involve very personal issues of identity.

That peer contagion is a legitimate hypothesis:

The processes of peer contagion, particularly noted among adolescent natal females with psychiatric disorders, alongside the accumulating evidence of social media’s detrimental impacts on young people in general, give cause for consideration of the evidence emerging from Littman’s study. If it can be said that social contagion processes have been shown to play a role in certain disorders [67,68,69], and that social media can potentially exacerbate these processes [83], it is reasonable to assume that this may also be the case for some adolescents with gender dysphoria. This gives reason for closer study and, crucially, the direct involvement of adolescents themselves.

That this is a subject that requires more study:

In our view, it is imperative to investigate the phenomena described in Littman’s research regarding a subgroup with distinct phenomenology. From our clinical experience in the medical care of affected children and adolescents, we observe at least a subset of patients with significant co-occurring psychopathology. It is not uncommon for these adolescents to describe an increase in gender dysphoria with the onset of puberty, often coinciding with the Covid-19 lockdowns and accompanied by an increase in social media use. In order to validate the theory and document the core clinical phenomenology, attempts must be made to replicate her observations using multiple sources of information (youth, parents, clinicians) and diverse methodology [85]. If forthcoming research substantiates the existence of this clinical phenomenon, the development of explanatory models will become crucial to enhance our clinical insight into the distinct needs of these patients.

That neither lauding Littman's findings nor condemning them is appropriate, callis it an important contribution, and also cautioning that even though some people may seize upon this as an explanation that allows them to argue against medical transition, that should not be a reason not to research further:

This article aimed to examine the controversial theory of rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) in light of the existing evidence base. In summary, it becomes clear that neither prematurely adopting ROGD as a valid explanatory model nor its hasty condemnation as transphobic is an appropriate response. It is hard to deny that Littman’s research has made an important contribution to the discourse. It is now the task of the scientific community to take up this contribution and build on it with further research. We have to face the fact that ROGD may provide a convenient pathogenic explanatory model for those who are fundamentally opposed to medical transitioning of adolescents. In our opinion, however, the correct response to such possible tendencies is not to suppress research in this direction, but to strengthen it, so that evidence-based judgments of its validity are possible.

So, add this to Thompson et al. and Elkadi et al. as sources that should be cited in balancing out this article. Also further questions any claims this is WP:FRINGE or WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE. Void if removed (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

This is entering WP:RGW levels of disruptive behavior on this topic. Your crusade to personally smash Turban's cite here is depressingly repetitive. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

What I said at the end was: sources that should be cited in balancing out this article

Any comment on how we might add this new source to balance out the content in the article, which is what this topic is about?

At the very least a paragraph in "further research", no? Void if removed (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

The TLDR of this paper was 1) There continues to be no evidence that ROGD exists 2) many people have claimed it exists despite the lack of evidence and 3) we should research it so we can more definitively say it's true or false. You said it should be cited in balancing out this article - I don't oppose citing it but you haven't laid out how the article is supposedly imbalanced. This paper is clear, claims that ROGD is definitely a real thing as opposed to a hypothesis based on shaky data continue to be WP:FRINGE. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a rather slanted interpretation of the paper, which stated that "neither prematurely adopting ROGD as a valid explanatory model nor its hasty condemnation as transphobic is an appropriate response" and "It is hard to deny that Littman’s research has made an important contribution to the discourse". This is hardly declaring ROGD to be "fringe", but simply a hypothesis that as of yet has not gained sufficient data to prove or disprove, but has enough plausibility that further study is desirable. *Dan T.* (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

To me, that's even more of a slanted interpretation. We never expect an external source to use WP jargon like "is fringe". Rather, this paper is another on the thick stack indicating that this hypothesis doesn't have the data to back it up. That by definition makes it fringe, in WP's sense. WP reports as factual that which is demonstrable (according to reliable sources) with evidence accepted by the preponderance of those sources, with an explanation agreed upon by the preponderance of those sources. If there is no such preponderance, then we have to report that the outcome is unknown. This is all already being applied here: WP is correctly reporting that most researchers in this field do not take ROGD seriously, but that it has been a subject of some politicized debate (and what those debates have been about). We're doing our job as encyclopedists.

This particular paper is probably fine to cite in the article somewhere, but it isn't answering that question. What it is very clearly doing is calling the original "research" shoddy and insufficient to have promoted such a claimed conclusion. The authors are just being academically polite in phrasing this as calling for "further research", "using multiple sources of information ... and diverse methodology", "so that evidence-based judgments of [the idea's] validity are possible". That is, Littman's work lacked all of these features, is not properly evidence-based, and cannot demonstrate its validity; Leonhardt et al. are making that quite clear, at least to anyone who reads a lot of academic material. Further, "hard to deny that Littman's research has made an important contribution to the discourse" is an observation about debate (i.e. about a sociological process within science and between scientists and public), not about the science itself. Next, these writers said that in their clinical practices they observed some correlation, during a particular extended societal circumstance, between increased gender dysphoria, puberty onset, and the replacement of face-to-face interaction with social media. That is an obvious correlation-not-causation matter. The effects of pandemic isolation, especially on youths, are still being figured out, but they include a lot of things, such as increased suicidal ideations and attempts, more susceptibility to conspiracy thinking and other irrational nonsense, obsessive levels of game playing, doomscrolling and TV bingeing, a rather drastic reduction in mathematics skills, and much else besides. That does not magically translate into a novel "rapid-onset suicidal syndrome", or a "rapid-onset critical thinking impairment condition", or a "rapid-onset media addiction disorder", or a "rapid-onset dyscalculia". It's certainly reasonable for these psychiatrists to want to see more research done if it might provide answers one way or another that help elucidate the complex nature of what some of their patients are experiencing as a confluence of emotional, mental, and social states, changes, and challenges. But that desire on their part doesn't mystically convey more evidence or plausibility on the hypothesis itself. Broad enough data to analyze with proper methodology has not somehow materialized just because Leonhard et al. would like it to.

Finally, and rather obviously, it's much more likely that A) tweens-to-teens experiencing gender dysphoria or transition are more likely to become anti-social and reliant on e-media, and exhibit other emotional health issues, because (despite society now more openly providing words to even talk about this subject) there is generally a lack of support and understanding, a "disbelief" issue, and now even a re-rising sociopolitical hatred directed toward them; than that B) kids who have anti-social, obsessive or psychologically addictive, suicidal, and other predilections are going to "turn trans" along with all that. Again, correlation and causation cannot be confused. The most obvious explanation is simply de-closeting. After the decriminalization of homosexuality, there was a "they're trying to turn me or my kids gay" moral panic, on the part of conservatives (of the same sort behind Littman's "research"), in response to more frequent visibility in everyday life and in the media of openly gay people. But no one was really "turned gay". It doesn't work that way. There's simply less closeting/stealth. Even the idea of trans being "trendy" is a misperception; the trend isn't "turning trans", it's simply a societal-acceptance shift in which examining one's own gender identity and not being afraid of the answer is becoming okay, as (within my lifetime) it has become more socially acceptable to question one's sexual preferences and not try to hide from the answer or hide the answer from others. (Well, at least in major Western cities – perhaps a different story in Iran or in Stone Mountain, Georgia, US.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Widely advertised, neutrally worded parental surveys could be a valid adjunct to data gathering, or even a means of recruiting "informants" (an unfortunate but ingrained term) into a more rigorous study. But recruiting, in biased wording, only parents from a religious-conservative, anti-trans activist pool (with the help of one of the owners of said forums) is obviously going to produce unreliable results. There is no way around that, no matter what some particular paper says in the way of apologetics. This paper deserves the same WP:DUE-weighting assessment process as any other, but it doesn't appear to be due very much.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:32, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hate to break it to you, but this section has been dead for nearly a year. I agree with your points, but they're kinda moot now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Shifting consensus

WP:DENY - this user was indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE behavior and has been globally blocked for cross-wiki vandalism/pov-pushing in favor of these conversion therapy orgs.

I just stumbled on this: The Shifting Scientific Consensus A fast-growing group of experts, including Hilary Cass, Jonathan Haidt, Gordon Guyatt (EBM), Richard Dawkins, Ray Blanchard, Stephen B. Levine, Michael Bailey, Ken Zucker, Marcus Evans, Michael Biggs, Riittakerttu Kaltiala and many other prominent researchers, support Littman’s analysis. Due to these experts’ academic credentials, ROGD deserves to be taken more seriously than gender clinics would have us believe. Their perspective no longer aligns with the increasing awareness in 2025 that social contagion likely plays a significant role in the extreme rise in cases. Source: https://genspect.org/resources/gender-dysphoria-support-tool/ WPATH is not a reliable source anymore nowadays (WPATH Files (why is there no article on this?!) and Boe v Marshall courtcase (why is there no article on this?!) & Rachel Levine). Since the Soc8 authors are also the authors of the Endocrine Society protocol and heavily intertwined with APA and AAP, there is kind of a citation kartel going on. The above mentioned specialists stand away from that kartel and their numbers are growing as more dare to speak out. When is ROGD a hypothesis 'debated' instead of 'scientifically unsupported' as is now written in the intro text? I think the latter is misleading as if it is a fringe theory. It is not anymore. you cannot downplay the relevance of guys like Haidt and Guyatt (among the others like Blanchard, Levine, Bailey, Zucker, Evans, Biggs, Kaltiala. All of them are relevant professors, but not supporting the TRA view point. Also the constant dismissal on Wikipedia of SEGM and Genspect is questionable and concerning. 2A02:A443:5030:0:6814:A634:6242:742C (talk) 11:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC) The fact you come in talking about the TRA view point belies your bias. You're coming here from anti-trans groups and being upset that the scientific community overall views this as completely unsupported. You're also trying to use conspiracist claims ("WPATH files") to downplay the scientific consensus. This isn't going to persuade anyone. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC) WPATh Files is not conspiracist claims. They are leaked documents with shocking information. "Ah the dog is not doing it for you anymore, huh?". Or the doctor who thinks you can ask consent from a patient with a multiple personality disorder, by just simply asking all his personalities. But you don't want to read the doc, because it doesn't match your preference. It's all readable here with after page 73 the copies of the leaked documents. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/56a45d683b0be33df885def6/t/6602fa875978a01601858171/1711471262073/WPATH+Report+and+Files111.pdf I am not the first one who brings up the problem of TRAs on Wikipedia being too promiment blocking anything to do with critique on GAC. While there is the WPATH Files, the Rachel Levine/WPATH scandal, Cass Review and yesterday this: https://www.nysun.com/article/new-research-raises-more-doubts-about-safety-and-benefits-of-gender-transition-treatments-for-minors?member_gift=CUZ5qwd3crq4pmz-xrd You cannot ignore Gordon Guyatt and Jonathan Haidt. That is just simply holding back proper sourced information. ROGD is not fringe anymore. ROGD is not as 'controversial' as it was anymore. In fact denying ROGD is becoming increasing controversial. The consensus is clearly shifting. Also yesterday this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/24/children-england-gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-rise Guardian refuses to mention the social contagion, but that is just a matter of time. Talk TV interviewed Stella and she mentioned it. People are not accepting anymore ROGD is not a thing. 2A02:A443:5030:0:54C1:E080:D752:123 (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC) It is clear that you are advocating for us to join you in promoting conspiracy theories which you are personally invested in to the extent that you seem to be, or to believe yourself to be, on first name terms with the people involved. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. We are not permitted to engage in Original Research or Original Synthesis. It is certainly not for us to help you incubate such conspiracy theories. The links you have provided are worthless. The only one that might have been any use at all was The Guardian but that one doesn't even contain any of the terms "rapid onset", "rapid-onset" or "ROGD". It is entirely off-topic. You are wasting everybody's time here. Please drop the matter. DanielRigal (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to Improve Article Neutrality and Accuracy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This article is neither balanced nor neutral—it reads more like a targeted, preemptive dismissal than an encyclopedic overview. If neutrality and adherence to policy matter more than reinforcing a particular ideological narrative, then these issues deserve serious attention—and, in my view, urgently need to be addressed.

The lead fails to reflect the current state of the academic conversation

The article opens by labeling ROGD a “scientifically unsupported hypothesis” in Wikipedia’s own voice, without attribution. This alone violates WP:ATTRIBUTION and WP:VOICE. Even setting that aside, while it is technically true that ROGD is not recognized as a formal diagnosis by major medical bodies, this phrasing functions less as a neutral descriptor and more as a rhetorical device—a selectively applied semantic standard used to discredit the hypothesis. Other related topics in the same domain, including those based on similarly limited or preliminary data (e.g., observational studies, self-reports), are not subjected to the same framing. This inconsistency gives the misleading impression that ROGD is uniquely unscientific, when in reality it is part of an ongoing and still-developing body of research.

Recent peer-reviewed studies do not present ROGD as validated, but they do identify clinical patterns—especially the rise in adolescent-onset dysphoria among natal females—that clearly warrant further study:

• Fahrenkrug et al. (2025) (not cited)
• Leonhardt et al. (2024) (not cited)
• Elkadi et al. (2023) (not cited)
• Thompson et al. (2023) (not cited, particularly egregious)

• 2023 prospective study of 79 adolescents at an Australian gender clinic
• 22.1% overall desisted from medical transition
• Some late-/rapid-onset cases did not meet diagnostic criteria for GD
• Subgroup showed complex psychosocial factors
• Authors call for individualized assessment and further research into adolescent-onset gender distress

• Ferrara et al. (2022) (buried)
• Arnoldussen et al. (2023) (buried)

These developments are not reflected in the lead and are barely acknowledged in the body. If they are reluctantly acknowledged, they’re buried. This is a clear violation of WP:DUE and raises serious concerns under WP:NPOV.

Major new study confirms key patterns consistent with ROGD

The recent 2025 study by Fahrenkrug et al. in Archives of Sexual Behavior—a large clinical analysis of 462 adolescents in Germany—provides perhaps the most robust empirical confirmation to date of the patterns ROGD was originally coined to describe, even if it does not use the term.

Key findings:

• 49% of adolescents presented with late-onset (LO) gender dysphoria—meaning no signs of GD in childhood, emerging only after the onset of puberty.
• LO adolescents had significantly higher rates of internalizing problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, suicidality) than early-onset peers—67% of LO scored in the clinical range, vs. 49% of EO.
• This effect was particularly pronounced among AFAB youth, who also reported more peer-related difficulties and lower global functioning.
• The authors conclude that LO adolescents form a distinct, particularly vulnerable subgroup with greater mental health burden and likely require a more individualized diagnostic and treatment approach than current one-size-fits-all models allow.

Critically, Fahrenkrug et al. suggest that protocol-based treatment standards—like the Dutch Protocol—may be insufficient or inappropriate for this increasingly common profile. They call for a developmentally informed, psychodynamically sensitive assessment model that considers broader psychiatric histories and the possibility that gender distress may interact with—or emerge from—other psychological challenges.

This is not a fringe claim. This is a peer-reviewed study by a reputable clinical research team, published in one of the field’s leading journals. If Wikipedia refuses to reflect the empirical significance of this research simply because it overlaps with a politically controversial hypothesis, that is not editorial neutrality—that is gatekeeping.

This study must be included in the article body. If WP:FRINGE is being applied to exclude research of this scope and rigor, then WP:FRINGE is being misapplied.

Suggested lead:

Rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD) is a controversial hypothesis suggesting that some adolescents—particularly natal females—develop gender dysphoria suddenly during or after puberty, influenced by factors such as peer groups, social media exposure, or psychological distress. The term was introduced in a 2018 study by Lisa Littman based on parent surveys, which has since drawn criticism for methodological flaws, including selection bias, reliance on parental reporting, and lack of adolescent input. Critics—including the American Psychological Association, World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and other major medical organizations—do not recognize ROGD as a formal diagnosis and have expressed concern that it may stigmatize transgender youth or be used to justify restricting access to gender-affirming care.

However, several recent peer-reviewed studies have described late-onset gender dysphoria presentations that share features with the ROGD model, such as adolescent-onset dysphoria without prior childhood indicators and elevated rates of internalizing problems. These studies (e.g., Fahrenkrug et al., 2025; Leonhardt et al., 2024) stop short of endorsing ROGD as a diagnosis but highlight the need for further research into developmental trajectories of adolescent gender dysphoria, particularly among natal females, and the implications for clinical assessment and treatment planning.

WP:FRINGE is not a tool to preemptively delegitimize hypotheses under study

ROGD has not been clinically validated, but it is no longer accurate to claim that it exists only in fringe spaces or to apply the label “scientifically unsupported hypothesis” without attribution. This kind of framing is misleading: it conditions the reader to equate the hypothesis with pseudoscience or bad faith speculation, despite the growing number of peer-reviewed studies that examine related clinical patterns and explicitly call for further investigation. When such terminology is selectively applied—only to hypotheses that challenge prevailing narratives—it undermines both editorial neutrality and Wikipedia’s credibility. Multiple research teams are now engaging with the topic directly or indirectly, not as activists, but as clinicians observing substantial demographic shifts and psychological comorbidities in adolescent patient populations. WP:FRINGE was not designed to suppress emerging clinical research simply because it is politically sensitive. That’s not how science works—and it should not be how Wikipedia works either.

The article treats scientific engagement with ROGD as suspect by default

Rather than distinguishing between political uses of ROGD and scientific investigation of it, the article seems to conflate the two. Nearly every mention of the hypothesis is followed by framing that casts it as demonstrably harmful, fringe, or ideologically engineered and malicious. Yet the clinicians and researchers publishing on this now include individuals who support gender-affirming care and are simply asking empirical questions about clinical presentation, comorbidities, and social factors. These views are minimized or dismissed in the current version, even when they appear in respected journals. This is indefensible.

Critique of Littman’s study is valid—but overemphasized and profoundly unbalanced

Littman’s 2018 study had clear limitations, which even she acknowledged in the correction. But the article reads less like a critique of methodology and more like a sustained effort to smear her credibility. There are multiple paragraphs about her personal connections, the websites where recruitment took place, the people she thanked, bloggers she talked to, and how the paper was used politically. These details vastly outweigh the actual discussion of the study’s content or subsequent responses to it in the academic literature. That imbalance overtly crosses into WP:BLP territory, or at least fails to meet the spirit of WP:NPOV.

The treatment of sources reflects a double standard

The article applies a strict lens of scrutiny to Littman’s use of parental surveys, citing recruitment bias and the lack of adolescent interviews. Fair enough. But similar critiques could easily apply to many studies on gender-affirming care that rely on self-reported, observational, non-randomized data with short-term follow-ups, particularly in minors. Yet these are not framed in other Wikipedia articles as “unsupported” or “fringe.” Why? This rhetorical framing suggests selectively applied skepticism and leveraging terminology not based on methodological quality, but based on whether the conclusions align with a dominant narrative. This is deceptive and intellectually manipulative. BurkeanOrder (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

TL;DR but maybe read WP:FALSEBALANCE? --DanielRigal (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If you’d actually read what I wrote instead of speed-running to WP:FALSEBALANCE, you’d know no one’s asking for fringe views to be treated as gospel. The issue is that the article editorializes, misattributes, and buries peer-reviewed research for no defensible reason.

WP:FALSEBALANCE is for flat Earth and moon landing hoaxes—not for dismissing legitimate, peer-reviewed studies in major journals. If you have to hastily misapply policy just to avoid reading the counterargument, I have to question both your motives and if you’re operating in good faith. BurkeanOrder (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

OK. Well, seeing as we are jumping straight to assuming bad faith, let me ask you how a newly registered account knows how to rattle off all those policies at such great length and how to sealion so effectively? I assume that you are not actually new here? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

If your rhetorical strategy is to question how I know Wikipedia policy instead of engaging with what I actually said, you’re just proving my point. Address the sources, the policies, or the arguments I made—or don’t. But deflecting to account age or speculating about how someone knows things, just because you can’t or won’t engage with the content, isn’t a good look. BurkeanOrder (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Erm, this is mostly WP:OR. Having read through the links provided, most don't mention ROGD or only do so in passing. It's OR that "late-onset" GD = ROGD without multiple RSes saying that's the case. Even then, those which do mention ROGD say that it's not yet an established fact, which is... what the article says? I don't think saying something is scientifically unsupported is biased or misleading if it is, actually, scientifically unsupported. Lewisguile (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You’re missing the core argument.

I’m not suggesting these studies “validate” ROGD as a diagnosis—they don’t. But they describe the exact same clinical phenomenon ROGD described: a sudden or late-onset of gender dysphoria during adolescence, most often in natal females, with no prior childhood indicators, and high rates of internalizing problems and social difficulties.

That is not a weak, non-correlational resemblance—that’s a fundamental overlap in presentation. The only difference is the label. Ignoring this because the term ROGD isn’t used is like ignoring a study on climate change because it doesn’t say “global warming.”

Failing to reflect this research is a violation of WP:DUE, and presenting ROGD as “scientifically unsupported” in Wikipedia’s voice is a violation of WP:VOICE and WP:ATTRIBUTION.

This isn’t about marshaling a fringe view—it’s about acknowledging that multiple peer-reviewed studies in respected journals are describing the exact same clinical profile. Wikipedia has to reflect that. BurkeanOrder (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

they describe the exact same clinical phenomenon ROGD described - whether or not this is true, as Lewisguile pointed out, they don't mention ROGD. Thus to use them here would indeed be WP:OR - specifically WP:SYNTH. AntiDionysius (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Fahrenkrug et al. (2025) – Archives of Sexual Behavior

• “In addition to the so-called ‘rapid-onset GD (ROGD)’ phenomenon (Littman, 2018)…”
• “The conceptualization of ROGD… has been controversial…”

— Fahrenkrug et al., 2025, pp. 3, 5

Leonhardt et al. (2024)

• “One proposal… is the notion of ‘rapid-onset’ gender dysphoria…”

“The purpose of this article is to analyze this theory…”

— Leonhardt et al., 2024, p. 1–2

Elkadi et al. (2023)

• “…what was termed late-onset, rapid-onset, or adolescent-onset GD.”
• “This group… presented with sudden-onset gender-related distress.”

— Elkadi et al., 2023, p. 6

These sources are compatible with WP:OR, explicitly mention ROGD, and are currently not cited in the article. BurkeanOrder (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

But you're not asking merely for them to be cited in the article (cited for what reason? Citations are meant to support text), you're asking to remove the phrase "scientifically unsupported hypothesis". None of these studies support that, and to say they do is SYNTH.

Leonhardt et al. explicitly declines to take a position on whether ROGD has scientific basis, and calls for more research to be done. And both Elkadi et al. and Leonhardt et al. mention ROGD in passing and then don't discuss it further. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

And then, of course, Thompson et al., Ferrara et al., and Arnoldussen et al., make no mention of ROGD whatsoever. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

You said these studies “don’t mention ROGD” or only do so in passing. That is incorrect. Each study explicitly names rapid-onset gender dysphoria and analyzes its clinical framing. This directly supports the final paragraph of the proposed lead.

The proposed lead says:

• “However, several recent peer-reviewed studies have described late-onset gender dysphoria presentations that share features with the ROGD model, such as adolescent-onset dysphoria without prior childhood indicators and elevated rates of internalizing problems. These studies (e.g., Fahrenkrug et al., 2025; Leonhardt et al., 2024) stop short of endorsing ROGD as a diagnosis but highlight the need for further research into developmental trajectories of adolescent gender dysphoria, particularly among natal females, and the implications for clinical assessment and treatment planning.”

That wording is supported, without synthesis, by the following:

• Fahrenkrug et al. (2025): “In addition to the so-called ‘rapid-onset GD (ROGD)’ phenomenon (Littman, 2018), which describes a presumably ‘sudden’ onset of GD without any previously recognizable clues, other differentiations based on the duration of GD and age at first presentation are also gaining attention.”
• And: “The conceptualization of ROGD (Littman, 2018) has been controversial due to its etiological assumptions.”
• Leonhardt et al. (2024): “One proposal that has generated considerable attention is the notion of ‘rapid-onset’ gender dysphoria, which is assumed to apply to a subset of adolescents and young adults.”
• And: “The purpose of this article is to analyze this theory and its associated hypotheses against the existing evidence base and to discuss its potential implications for future research and the advancement of treatment paradigms.”
• Elkadi et al. (2023): “Alongside our international colleagues… the founding multidisciplinary team also became aware of the increase of presentations of what was termed late-onset, rapid-onset, or adolescent-onset GD. This group of adolescents, predominantly female, had no prior history of gender distress during early development and presented with sudden-onset gender-related distress.”

These are not offhand mentions. They discuss ROGD directly and describe the exact clinical profile referenced in the proposed lead. None of them validates ROGD as a diagnosis—and the lead does not say they do.

Where should they go?

• All three sources should be cited at the end of the final paragraph of the proposed lead, following:

• “These studies… stop short of endorsing ROGD as a diagnosis but highlight the need for further research…”

That is not WP:SYNTH. It is accurate attribution of what these sources actually say. Refusing to cite them, while continuing to label ROGD a “scientifically unsupported hypothesis” in Wikipedia’s own voice, is a violation of WP:VOICE and WP:ATTRIBUTE. BurkeanOrder (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

However, several recent peer-reviewed studies have described late-onset gender dysphoria presentations that share features with the ROGD model is textbook WP:SYNTH. It is in fact all but saying that it's doing synthesis.

The prohibition on synthesis is phrased as "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Your proposed wording says that the studies "described late-onset gender dysphoria presentations that share features with the ROGD model". But none of the studies describe themselves as doing this. So it's synthesis. AntiDionysius (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

That’s incorrect—this is not “textbook” WP:SYNTH, and the policy doesn’t support that claim.

WP:SYNTH prohibits combining disconnected facts from different sources to imply a new conclusion that none of them individually support. That’s not what’s happening here.

In this case:

• The sources directly use the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD).
• They explicitly describe clinical patterns that match the ROGD model—e.g., adolescent-onset dysphoria, no prior childhood indicators, high internalizing problems, often natal female.
• They acknowledge the controversy and call for further research.

The proposed sentence—“several recent peer-reviewed studies have described late-onset gender dysphoria presentations that share features with the ROGD model”—is not synthesizing a new claim. It’s a straightforward summary of what the sources themselves say—some in nearly those exact words. As clarified in WP:What SYNTH is not, summarizing information from multiple sources is explicitly allowed as long as each element is verifiable and no novel inference is introduced.

• The SYNTH policy doesn’t forbid summarizing multiple sources—it only forbids combining them to create a new, unsourced conclusion.

According to WP:What SYNTH is not:

• Summary is explicitly allowed, even across sources, as long as each point is supported and no new thesis is introduced.
• Synthesis itself isn’t the issue—only original research by synthesis is.
• If no new claim is being made, it’s not SYNTH, and the burden is on critics to show otherwise.

In this case, the sentence simply summarizes what the sources say directly—they use the ROGD term and describe the clinical patterns. There’s no novel inference, so this is clearly within policy.

This is standard WP:DUE summarization of reliable sources that discuss the topic directly. Not only is it not SYNTH, it would arguably violate WP:VOICE and WP:UNDUE to omit or bury these sources simply because the topic is controversial.

If peer-reviewed studies use the term, describe the profile, and assess its implications, Wikipedia should reflect that. Suppressing this because it complicates a preferred narrative isn’t policy—it’s gatekeeping. This looks less like policy enforcement and more like narrative entrenchment, with editorial process being weaponized to silence dissenting—but sourced—views. BurkeanOrder (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The idea that the sources' findings "share features with the ROGD model" is a novel connection which you are making. If it wasn't, the sources would mention ROGD in their conclusions/discussions and note the shared features. They do not. Passing references to it in their literature review sections transparently do not count. Finding something with Ctrl+F in a part of the source unrelated to the claim you're making does not make synthesis problems go away.

If this very obvious point has not sunk in now, I doubt it's going to. Repeating myself is getting old, as is the constant assumption of others' bad faith that has been present in every single one of your contributions to this thread (including before anyone had replied to you). Have a good Sunday. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The claim that summarizing peer-reviewed studies as describing “presentations that share features with the ROGD model” violates WP:SYNTH is demonstrably incorrect. These studies explicitly reference ROGD and detail clinical patterns—such as adolescent-onset gender dysphoria, lack of prior childhood indicators, and elevated internalizing issues—that align directly with the model’s original definition. This is not synthesis but a neutral summary of what the sources themselves say.

As WP:What SYNTH is not makes clear—and as explicitly stated in the section WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY:

• “Summary is explicitly allowed, even across sources, as long as each point is supported and no new thesis is introduced.”

No new claim is being made. The only thing being introduced is a challenge to a prevailing editorial narrative. If that challenge is blocked not on the basis of accuracy or sourcing, but by stretching policy beyond its intent, then the issue clearly isn’t WP:SYNTH—it’s selective enforcement. When reliable sources are discussing a phenomenon directly, excluding them while erroneously citing policy sends a message: not that the material is flawed, but that it’s unwelcome. BurkeanOrder (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

There is a big difference between saying that those papers are directly about ROGD and those papers mentioning that their topics share some features with ROGD—blindlynx 18:50, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

We're wasting our time here. Does anybody uninvolved want to roll this up? DanielRigal (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Even if it weren't WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, it would be WP:UNDUE given that only one of these studies seems directly related to the topic at hand, so implying the others support the statement too is reaching.

But yes, Daniel is right. This editor's rhetorical style seems very familiar to me (the insistence, the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, the absolute confidence that these assertions are correct), and I feel we've had these debates before on related topics. Lewisguile (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreed—blindlynx 20:41, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

Articles mentioning ROGD in passing is not evidence for its existence as a clinical phenomenon. Suggest closing HenrikHolen (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.